Interest rulings in the labor field

Pregnant worker and ERTE

A worker who was on sick leave due to pregnancy risk was included in an ERTE for contract suspension due to COVID-19, and consequently, during the time that measure lasted, she was denied the sick leave benefit she was receiving. Well, the worker filed a lawsuit and the Supreme Court [TS 15-09-2025] ruled in her favor:

• Given that, having taken sick leave due to pregnancy risk, the contract was already suspended, the worker could not be included in an ERTE: it is impossible to suspend a contract that is already suspended.
• Therefore, the court concludes that the affected worker should have continued to receive the benefit while her incapacity to return to a position compatible with her condition persisted, and she could not be included in a subsequent ERTE.

Unpaid parental leave

After much uncertainty on the matter and different interpretations, the National Court [AN 30-09-2025] has concluded that the eight-week parental leave is not paid, neither by the company nor through a public benefit, as the regulation does not specify it. In this sense:

• Parental leave is a cause for the suspension of the employment contract, exempting the parties from their reciprocal obligations to work and remunerate work.
• But it is not a paid leave. There are already other similar leaves that are paid and are expressly defined as such.

It is important to remember that this leave originated from the obligation to transpose a European directive in Spain, and the European Union law does not necessarily require the leave to be paid.

The company retracted the dismissal

According to the courts [TSJ Aragón 26-09-2025], the company cannot unilaterally impose the retraction of a dismissal communicated to the worker, unless the worker accepts the rehiring and the restoration of the employment relationship. In case the worker does not accept, they maintain the right to legally challenge the dismissal.

The regulations allow for a second dismissal to correct formal defects of the first one, as long as:

• The company keeps the worker on the payroll and pays the salaries for the intervening days.
• The worker has accepted the restoration of the employment relationship. If the worker does not accept to return, the retraction has no effect, so the affected party still has the right to challenge the initial dismissal.